BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Not being as knowledgeable about the Bible as you guys, I realize the following may sound stupid, but perhaps you can help me understand how someone can sin without committing a sinful act either in thought or physical act. Sorry if this sounds stupid but I have been learning some things, especially church history and some new resources.

---

There is no stupid question. Don't be afraid to ask ANY sincere question. That's what this thread is supposed to be about, although lots of debate also happens here.

1Adam being the first man had the DNA of every subsequent human being inside of himself from the beginning.
2)Adam sinned before reproducing any children.
3) When Adam sinned, it changed his very nature from an innocent, sinless creature into a sinful one. It permeated every part of his being.
4) Therefore, when he had children from then on, he passed his sin nature down to every person that came after him.

Referring to Adam here:

Romans 5:12 (KJV)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The good news is that Just As Adam passed his sin nature on all men, Jesus Christ died rose again, Sacrificing Himself for our sins, so that ALL men might be saved, But only those who apply it to their lives will be saved. This is because God won't force anyone to serve Him.


1 Corinthians 15:22 (KJV)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If you read this first post, it explains this in more detail. God bless and feel free to ask me anything.

---

Is Adam a historical person in your understanding? What year was he created?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

So wait, you're subscribing to a belief that just comes from where in order to be sola scriptura? So that's ok but you're too closed minded to to recognize you're own hypocrisy in your arguments thus far?

I am fascinate

And tell me kind sir, who assembled this Bible from the countless texts in existence, thousands, that you sola scriptura?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

Ok so you've established this is how you believe, sola scriptura not because of explicit Mention in the Bible or tradition but because of something outside of the Bible…logic (which I also used and laid out neatly in summary form in the article which uses…logic for the topic of Mary).

Yet you don't believe John 6:53. Interesting and perplexing

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

So wait, you're subscribing to a belief that just comes from where in order to be sola scriptura? So that's ok but you're too closed minded to to recognize you're own hypocrisy in your arguments thus far?

I am fascinate

And tell me kind sir, who assembled this Bible from the countless texts in existence, thousands, that you sola scriptura?

---

Not all beliefs regarding scripture have to come from scripture. For example, nowhere in the Gospels does it say the Gospels are divinely inspired. But you believe it, don't you?

No one got a bunch of books together and voted on which should be considered divinely inspired. The books in the Bible were divinely inspired the moment they were written. God's people then recognized it as such. In other words, GOD assembled the Bible, and His people received it. For example, the four Gospels were already being circulated among the first century churches and recognized as divinely inspired, authoritative writings. Long before any church council decided anything. Church councils only made the recognition formal.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

So wait, you're subscribing to a belief that just comes from where in order to be sola scriptura? So that's ok but you're too closed minded to to recognize you're own hypocrisy in your arguments thus far?

I am fascinate

And tell me kind sir, who assembled this Bible from the countless texts in existence, thousands, that you sola scriptura?

---

Not all beliefs regarding scripture have to come from scripture. For example, nowhere in the Gospels does it say the Gospels are divinely inspired. But you believe it, don't you?

No one got a bunch of books together and voted on which should be considered divinely inspired. The books in the Bible were divinely inspired the moment they were written. God's people then recognized it as such. In other words, GOD assembled the Bible, and His people received it. For example, the four Gospels were already being circulated among the first century churches and recognized as divinely inspired, authoritative writings. Long before any church council decided anything. Church councils only made the recognition formal.

---

So you're not sola scriptural or you are? Seems like you're saying you are except when you're not but only when you decide you're not

And who assembled those councils? Because without that you wouldn't have a Bible today.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

"Full of grace" doesn't mean "sinless". Nor does it mean from conception. Stephen in Acts was also said to be "full of grace" (Acts 6:8). Was he sinless too?

The Protoevangelium of James is a Gnostic writing. Gnosticism is a heresy. You're defending the sinlessness of Mary with known heresy.

The doctrine stating that Mary was saved from sin at the moment of her conception is completely made up. It has absolutely no basis in Scripture or in the early church. So you're supporting the completely made up belief that Mary was sinless with another completely made up belief. Also, it would mean that God could have saved everyone from sin in the same manner, without having His Son go through such pain and torture. Jesus' torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection would have been completely unnecessary.

Just because Mary was "likened" to Eve doesn't automatically mean she was sinless. And Eve wasn't even sinless. This reasoning makes absolutely no sense. This is completely contrived.

The sinlessness of Mary is NOT theologically necessary. In fact, it is AGAINST what's theologically necessary. All who descended from Adam and Eve, which includes ALL humans including Mary, inherited sin. The only way Mary could be sinless is if she was not from that line. And if she's not from that line, then Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of God's promise in Genesis that someone in the line of Eve would "crush the head of the serpent".

These are ALL wrong, and I'm just giving you a quick overview why. Pick the ONE that you think is the strongest, and we can go into it further.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

"Full of grace" doesn't mean "sinless". Nor does it mean from conception. Stephen in Acts was also said to be "full of grace" (Acts 6:8). Was he sinless too?

The Protoevangelium of James is a Gnostic writing. Gnosticism is a heresy. You're defending the sinlessness of Mary with known heresy.

The doctrine stating that Mary was saved from sin at the moment of her conception is completely made up. It has absolutely no basis in Scripture or in the early church. So you're supporting the completely made up belief that Mary was sinless with another completely made up belief. Also, it would mean that God could have saved everyone from sin in the same manner, without having His Son go through such pain and torture. Jesus' torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection would have been completely unnecessary.

Just because Mary was "likened" to Eve doesn't automatically mean she was sinless. And Eve wasn't even sinless. This reasoning makes absolutely no sense. This is completely contrived.

The sinlessness of Mary is NOT theologically necessary. In fact, it is AGAINST what's theologically necessary. All who descended from Adam and Eve, which includes ALL humans including Mary, inherited sin. The only way Mary could be sinless is if she was not from that line. And if she's not from that line, then Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of God's promise in Genesis that someone in the line of Eve would "crush the head of the serpent".

These are ALL wrong, and I'm just giving you a quick overview why. Pick the ONE that you think is the strongest, and we can go into it further.

---

Every single rebuttal of yours is wrong. Man this would be difficult if I cared to help you but I'll let you help yourself.

I find it odd you believe in tran substantiation but also not odd that you're kind of sola scriptura but can't even be consistent there.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

Ok so you've established this is how you believe, sola scriptura not because of explicit Mention in the Bible or tradition but because of something outside of the Bible…logic (which I also used and laid out neatly in summary form in the article which uses…logic for the topic of Mary).

Yet you don't believe John 6:53. Interesting and perplexing

---

Yes, I believe sola scriptura. Can you falsify my logic with the cookie recipe example?

And how does this mean I don't believe John 6:53??

And why aren't you citing what you think is the strongest argument for Mary's sinlessness, as requested, instead of continually dodging this?

Your whole argumentation is what's perplexing.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

I'm not arguing sola scriptura you are as defense for your convoluted misunderstandings. But then you're a moment later not even sola scriptura which is what makes it so difficult and confusing for you

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

"Full of grace" doesn't mean "sinless". Nor does it mean from conception. Stephen in Acts was also said to be "full of grace" (Acts 6:8). Was he sinless too?

The Protoevangelium of James is a Gnostic writing. Gnosticism is a heresy. You're defending the sinlessness of Mary with known heresy.

The doctrine stating that Mary was saved from sin at the moment of her conception is completely made up. It has absolutely no basis in Scripture or in the early church. So you're supporting the completely made up belief that Mary was sinless with another completely made up belief. Also, it would mean that God could have saved everyone from sin in the same manner, without having His Son go through such pain and torture. Jesus' torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection would have been completely unnecessary.

Just because Mary was "likened" to Eve doesn't automatically mean she was sinless. And Eve wasn't even sinless. This reasoning makes absolutely no sense. This is completely contrived.

The sinlessness of Mary is NOT theologically necessary. In fact, it is AGAINST what's theologically necessary. All who descended from Adam and Eve, which includes ALL humans including Mary, inherited sin. The only way Mary could be sinless is if she was not from that line. And if she's not from that line, then Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of God's promise in Genesis that someone in the line of Eve would "crush the head of the serpent".

These are ALL wrong, and I'm just giving you a quick overview why. Pick the ONE that you think is the strongest, and we can go into it further.

---

Every single rebuttal of yours is wrong. Man this would be difficult if I cared to help you but I'll let you help yourself.

I find it odd you believe in tran substantiation but also not odd that you're kind of sola scriptura but can't even be consistent there.

---

Don't TELL me, SHOW me. How am I wrong? Why don't you answer my request? Pick ONE which you think is the strongest argument for Mary's sinlessness, and we can go into it further. You spend more time and energy telling me I'm wrong without actually showing it.

And who said I believe in transsubstantiation? And how am I not being consistent with sola scriptura? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

Ok so you've established this is how you believe, sola scriptura not because of explicit Mention in the Bible or tradition but because of something outside of the Bible…logic (which I also used and laid out neatly in summary form in the article which uses…logic for the topic of Mary).

Yet you don't believe John 6:53. Interesting and perplexing

---

Yes, I believe sola scriptura. Can you falsify my logic with the cookie recipe example?

And how does this mean I don't believe John 6:53??

And why aren't you citing what you think is the strongest argument for Mary's sinlessness, as requested, instead of continually dodging this?

Your whole argumentation is what's perplexing.

---

So you believe in transubstantiation? I wouldn't assume but if I did I would assume no based on your other beliefs

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

Ok so you've established this is how you believe, sola scriptura not because of explicit Mention in the Bible or tradition but because of something outside of the Bible…logic (which I also used and laid out neatly in summary form in the article which uses…logic for the topic of Mary).

Yet you don't believe John 6:53. Interesting and perplexing

---

Yes, I believe sola scriptura. Can you falsify my logic with the cookie recipe example?

And how does this mean I don't believe John 6:53??

And why aren't you citing what you think is the strongest argument for Mary's sinlessness, as requested, instead of continually dodging this?

Your whole argumentation is what's perplexing.

---

So you believe in transubstantiation? I wouldn't assume but if I did I would assume no based on your other beliefs

---

Are you a drinker?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

"Full of grace" doesn't mean "sinless". Nor does it mean from conception. Stephen in Acts was also said to be "full of grace" (Acts 6:8). Was he sinless too?

The Protoevangelium of James is a Gnostic writing. Gnosticism is a heresy. You're defending the sinlessness of Mary with known heresy.

The doctrine stating that Mary was saved from sin at the moment of her conception is completely made up. It has absolutely no basis in Scripture or in the early church. So you're supporting the completely made up belief that Mary was sinless with another completely made up belief. Also, it would mean that God could have saved everyone from sin in the same manner, without having His Son go through such pain and torture. Jesus' torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection would have been completely unnecessary.

Just because Mary was "likened" to Eve doesn't automatically mean she was sinless. And Eve wasn't even sinless. This reasoning makes absolutely no sense. This is completely contrived.

The sinlessness of Mary is NOT theologically necessary. In fact, it is AGAINST what's theologically necessary. All who descended from Adam and Eve, which includes ALL humans including Mary, inherited sin. The only way Mary could be sinless is if she was not from that line. And if she's not from that line, then Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of God's promise in Genesis that someone in the line of Eve would "crush the head of the serpent".

These are ALL wrong, and I'm just giving you a quick overview why. Pick the ONE that you think is the strongest, and we can go into it further.

---

Every single rebuttal of yours is wrong. Man this would be difficult if I cared to help you but I'll let you help yourself.

I find it odd you believe in tran substantiation but also not odd that you're kind of sola scriptura but can't even be consistent there.

---

Don't TELL me, SHOW me. How am I wrong? Why don't you answer my request? Pick ONE which you think is the strongest argument for Mary's sinlessness, and we can go into it further. You spend more time and energy telling me I'm wrong without actually showing it.

And who said I believe in transsubstantiation? And how am I not being consistent with sola scriptura? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

---

I've already pointed out your Inconsistency. So you're not sola scriptura by your own admission or simply just redefining it which is a common approach to try to fit your belief.

Is 3 too hard for you? You made me spoon feed it for you which I didn't mind as I try to help as many people as possible.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

By the way. Sola scriptura isn't written anywhere in the Bible so by that very fact, that is a tradition of man.

That will bend some minds for those that think they are sola scriptura

---

Sola Scriptura is not a biblical argument nor a tradition. It's a logical and necessarily true principle about sets, the bible being the set of all known divinely inspired words of God. It is a logical and necessary truth independent of the bible.

None of you opponents of sola scriptura understand this. You're essentially arguing that it's wrong to believe that we have to follow the specific list of ingredients and steps in a cookie recipe in order to make cookie correctly, because the recipe itself does not specifically state that we have to ONLY follow those steps and ingredients.

---

Ok so you've established this is how you believe, sola scriptura not because of explicit Mention in the Bible or tradition but because of something outside of the Bible…logic (which I also used and laid out neatly in summary form in the article which uses…logic for the topic of Mary).

Yet you don't believe John 6:53. Interesting and perplexing

---

Yes, I believe sola scriptura. Can you falsify my logic with the cookie recipe example?

And how does this mean I don't believe John 6:53??

And why aren't you citing what you think is the strongest argument for Mary's sinlessness, as requested, instead of continually dodging this?

Your whole argumentation is what's perplexing.

---

So you believe in transubstantiation? I wouldn't assume but if I did I would assume no based on your other beliefs

---

Are you a drinker?

---

Define drinker. I have ingested alcohol. Have you? How is this relevant? Stay on topic

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Seriously, can some other commenter who disagrees with me tap Freedumbear out, and trade places with him so we can actually have a rational, constructive debate on this topic? Let's just say, it's quite evident that he's not on the Roman Catholic "A" team of apologists.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

As an apparent Protestant apologist you're failing hugely. I'm casually paying attention during football commercials

Stephen full of grace = mary full of grace? Wrong again. They aren't even the same words and therefore total non sequitur to the one key topic we've been trying to keep you on track on

This is why it is truly so dangerous to think you can just read a Bible translation and decide what you think the text meant. It can lead you down a very dangerous path of wrong answers and assumptions.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

You're just saying I'm wrong, you haven't argued why.

**FOCUS**: I didn't ask for a "tradition not from the bible". I asked for a "tradition not from the bible that we know came from Jesus and the apostles". The three you gave for answers were: 1) sinlessness of Mary; 2) purgatory, and; 3) priests not marrying. Correct?

You argued that purgatory and priests not marrying is from the bible. I disagree that they are, but whatever, I'm only interested in what YOU think is a tradition NOT in the bible but came from Jesus or his apostles. Therefore, these are not what I'm asking for. That leaves the "sinlessness of Mary". With me so far?

So, with the "sinlessness of Mary", now show me how this belief is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. **Let me remind you: you are saying this is NOT in scripture, so don't give what you think is scriptural support. I'm asking for NON-scriptural support that it traces this belief back to Jesus or his apostles.

Is this calm, succint, and focused enough for you? Okay..now go.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

As an apparent Protestant apologist you're failing hugely. I'm casually paying attention during football commercials

Stephen full of grace = mary full of grace? Wrong again. They aren't even the same words and therefore total non sequitur to the one key topic we've been trying to keep you on track on

This is why it is truly so dangerous to think you can just read a Bible translation and decide what you think the text meant. It can lead you down a very dangerous path of wrong answers and assumptions.

---

But what makes being "full of grace" necessarily mean you are sinless, regardless of the Greek words used or tense of the verb?? Why would the tense of the verb show that it means the person the angel is talking to is "sinless"??

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

And you still haven't answered the 2ish questions I've now pointed to 4 times in this thread. Why?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

You're just saying I'm wrong, you haven't argued why.

**FOCUS**: I didn't ask for a "tradition not from the bible". I asked for a "tradition not from the bible that we know came from Jesus and the apostles". The three you gave for answers were: 1) sinlessness of Mary; 2) purgatory, and; 3) priests not marrying. Correct?

You argued that purgatory and priests not marrying is from the bible. I disagree that they are, but whatever, I'm only interested in what YOU think is a tradition NOT in the bible but came from Jesus or his apostles. Therefore, these are not what I'm asking for. That leaves the "sinlessness of Mary". With me so far?

So, with the "sinlessness of Mary", now show me how this belief is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. **Let me remind you: you are saying this is NOT in scripture, so don't give what you think is scriptural support. I'm asking for NON-scriptural support that it traces this belief back to Jesus or his apostles.

Is this calm, succint, and focused enough for you? Okay..now go.

---

This was rather verbose honestly so not succinct but I'll roll with it.

Reminder, you're the one that believes there's not biblical Support for purgatory or a sinless queen mother Mary mother of God. You're the one that believes there's not biblical support.

I've already provided the biblical support.

I'm gathering Somehow to you tradition = not in the Bible. That's not my definition so I'd find it hard to answer your non sequitur.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

And you still haven't answered the 2ish questions I've now pointed to 4 times in this thread. Why?

---

Just hold on, I'll answer anything you want me to. I'm trying to stay focused on just a couple of points for now, because you seem to be confused and all over the place.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

You're just saying I'm wrong, you haven't argued why.

**FOCUS**: I didn't ask for a "tradition not from the bible". I asked for a "tradition not from the bible that we know came from Jesus and the apostles". The three you gave for answers were: 1) sinlessness of Mary; 2) purgatory, and; 3) priests not marrying. Correct?

You argued that purgatory and priests not marrying is from the bible. I disagree that they are, but whatever, I'm only interested in what YOU think is a tradition NOT in the bible but came from Jesus or his apostles. Therefore, these are not what I'm asking for. That leaves the "sinlessness of Mary". With me so far?

So, with the "sinlessness of Mary", now show me how this belief is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. **Let me remind you: you are saying this is NOT in scripture, so don't give what you think is scriptural support. I'm asking for NON-scriptural support that it traces this belief back to Jesus or his apostles.

Is this calm, succint, and focused enough for you? Okay..now go.

---

This was rather verbose honestly so not succinct but I'll roll with it.

Reminder, you're the one that believes there's not biblical Support for purgatory or a sinless queen mother Mary mother of God. You're the one that believes there's not biblical support.

I've already provided the biblical support.

I'm gathering Somehow to you tradition = not in the Bible. That's not my definition so I'd find it hard to answer your non sequitur.

---

Okay, so..... you realize you haven't answered the question, right??

---